On field refs and commentators thought it was a try, and that there was no way the Dogs' 6 was going to stop Sivo from where he was.
It was definitely a try in spirit.
Bunker disallowed on a technicality but was wrong. If you are offside the owness is on you to not obstruct.
But if you are onside holding your line and obstruct then no penalty.
Simmonsen was back onside when the alleged obstruction occurred.
Sivo had passed him and the Dogs players were running backwards to catch Sivo.
Thus, the obstruction rule for offside players no longer applies.
Replies
Try every day of the week. That video ref was incompetent
Yes but what about the eels try where Penasini clearly knocked on then Gutherson scored? Why isn't anyone complaining about that one? I'll tell you because some people on here the misconception that every call is biased against Parramatta in a bid to derail our season. What comes around goes around
Because he didn't knock on, he pulled the ball back towards himself. Then the dogs player knocked it sideways toward Gutho.
Correct
That's fair Chief, and I wouldn't have been shocked had they denied Gutho's first try, but at least that was 50/50, there was nothing 50/50 about Sivo's 2nd.
50/50 I thought they would have disallowed it cause they normally take anything they can off us. It wasn't a howler and was not a knock on for me.
Hence why I said he was incompetent. He got many calls wrong - I thought he got that call wrong too
Penisini pulled the ball towards our goal line, then the Bulldogs player knocked it towards Gutho, giving the illusion that it was a Parra Knock On. I thought the double movement was a bit more 50/50.
Terrible decision.
Another was the call of held when Cartwright stripped the ball. The same thing happend later in the game to Sivo and it was play on.
That was a one on one strip in the true meaning of the rule, not this practise of three blokes holding a player till someone attacks the ball then letting them go.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next